RF amp will be mounted next to the cavity but outside the Faraday Cage. If it leaks too much RF, will put it in it's own Faraday Cage.

The videos are nice, but until the mechanisms are replicated by an independent third party, it doesn't count for beans. Third party replication and verification is what makes the scientific method such a powerful tool. If the replication experiments are successful, then it'll be time to shout it from the rooftops.

My tests will be streamed live via YouTube & recorded for all to watch over and over.

I disagree that they confirmed CofE observed. What was demonstrated was constant angular velocity at constant thrust. That represents zero acceleration. That does not correspond to either a constant acceleration model (non-CofE) nor to a decreasing acceleration model (CofE). What it shows is that an equilibrium was reached between the thrust and the friction at a particular angular velocity.

Friction is not our friend because it muddies the waters. It needs to be modelled and it dissipates power to boot. Basically, it complicates the analysis. Nevertheless, one is going to have to deal with it in the data analysis.

I disagree that they confirmed CofE observed. What was demonstrated was constant angular velocity at constant thrust. That represents zero acceleration. That does not correspond to either a constant acceleration model (non-CofE) nor to a decreasing acceleration model (CofE). What it shows is that an equilibrium was reached between the thrust and the friction at a particular angular velocity.

Friction is not our friend because it muddies the waters. It needs to be modelled and it dissipates power to boot. Basically, it complicates the analysis. Nevertheless, one is going to have to deal with it in the data analysis.

Which is why I designed in an ability to be able to vary the mechanical load on the rotary test rig and observe changes in the amount of energy needed (increased RF power) to maintain a constant rate of angular motion. I plan to use magnetic bearings.

From the statuc test data, should have good power to thrust curves, which will then be useful in the dynamic tests.

Really? As far as I can see, all you'll have proven is that a hot metal cone mounted on a turntable can create enough convection currents to move it around a bit

Good comment.

Will add an IR camera video feed so we can see what the heat is doing. Could also put the EM Drive inside a 25mm thick foam box.

Are you OK with those changes eliminating any heat anomaly?

This dynamic test will only be done once the static tests show significant thrust and there is a input power to thrust curve available. This rotary test is not designed to measure thrust but to show how the power consumed by the EM Drive varies as rotary load varies, which to the EM Drive would be like a performance curve of power versus accelerative load mass.

I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...

It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.

Did you find any other mistakes?

No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.

Todd D.

My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.

Are you really saying that you reject this?

What about with respect to the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" CMBR? Couldn't we say the universe has this as an absolute frame?

Lets say there is a God view looking above far from all gravitational fields observing the universe and stationary with respect to its boundaries. (It should have a finite size if it had a beginning and an expansion.) Light falling into gravity fields I would think should slow down, (considering the limit when light reaches an event horizon). From inside a gravity field I should think light should still appear to be going c due the shrinking of the ruller. This could give the appearance of the index of refraction (gravitational lensing). Two objects traveling towards each other @ .6c still appear from the God view to be approaching at 1.2c though I suppose the two observers both have their (space/time) warped so it appears to them they are not approaching each other at 1.2c but rather v<c. I mean sure time/space screws our perceptions all up but why not have an absolute frame of the universe or CMB where either we are moving with respect to it or we arent? Or am I missing something.

Congratulations! You have just "correctly" described the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. However, we do not need the CMBR. We simply define an observer "at infinity" to have a refractive index, K=1. From that perspective, he can observe the relative value of K, for all gravitational fields, where K > 1. If he sees something moving FTL, he will assign that space with a relative value of, K < 1.

It is still not a preferred frame, because K can be "defined" as 1 anywhere, and all observations are relative to that definition. Mark Millis has said that the CMBR is a preferred frame. IMO, it doesn't make the Math any easier, it just confuses people. As an engineer, I see all things as relative and take everything with a grain of salt.

Todd

I am not a math magician either, but when I read this, I picture "God" viewing it all from a higher spatial dimension, because that is the only way to properly overview 3D spacetime and be completele free of relativistic effects (example: we can oversee everything drawn on a sheet of paper which is one dimension lower than us, while a "flatlander" who lives in the paper cannot). That way "God" could create preferred frames at will. Or am I now talking BS?

I am sorry if this does not contribute to the discussion. Trying to wrap my head around a lot of this.

Really? As far as I can see, all you'll have proven is that a hot metal cone mounted on a turntable can create enough convection currents to move it around a bit

Good comment.

Will add an IR camera video feed so we can see what the heat is doing. Could also put the EM Drive inside a 25mm thick foam box.

Are you OK with those changes eliminating any heat anomaly?

This dynamic test will only be done once the static tests show significant thrust and there is a input power to thrust curve available. This rotary test is not designed to measure thrust but to show how the power consumed by the EM Drive varies as rotary load varies, which to the EM Drive would be like a performance curve of power versus accelerative load mass.

I would not place it in a sealed box, because that will always bring up the question of what if it wasn't perfectly sealed and a air-jet leak helped it propel in the right direct....

Place the device in a box that has one open side and place it so that the open edge is on the same side of the small plate. If any serious thermal effect of comes of the emdrive the open_on_one_side_box will act as a "rocket engine" rotating the device in the opposite direction of what we think the EMdrive will do (movement towards the small endplate )

IF the EM drive still moves in the small endplate direction, then it simply CAN NOT be any thermal effect, air jet or convection effect.

No need to have a high standard proof that your box is indeed completely sealed as the open box will redirect any forces generated by convection, hot air jets, etc into the opposite way.

agreed.. but then again, I do not know what power TheTraveler plans on using, but if the thrust is so weak.. why bother talking about devices that lift 1 ton?

What is needed is a clear , irrefutable force that can not be explained by any known side effect, performed by several other labs or home builders.

The whole issue with the EagleWorks last tests is just the difficulty the keep net force results separated from background noise. It leads to endless bickering about measurement methods, noise reduction systems, flawed setups, false readings, etc...

That's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...

We really need a brute force approach to get scientific/engineering interest and above all... credibility...

If, in the end, it turns out to be nothing, then we've all wasted some time on this... no real harm done, and we had some fun with the theoretical speculations. (although I'm more a front row spectator , then a participant)If however this would turn out to be something, then space exploration will never be the same...

The Shawyer video shows constant input power producing constant thrust working against (presumably) friction, resulting in constant velocity. Thus the output power is constant. But is this velocity limit really due to friction, or due to something more fundamental?